Ronald Cannon v. Rachael Lane
The Fifth District quashed an order compelling a putative father to submit to genetic testing in a proceeding brought by a thirty-nine-year-old seeking adult support. Although section 61.1255(2)(c) allows a dependent adult child to seek support at any time after reaching 17 years and 6 months, the predicate determination of paternity remains subject to the four-year limitations period in section 95.11(3)(a), which runs from the child's attainment of majority. The court also confirmed that an unambiguous statute — without any decision construing it — can itself supply the 'clearly established law' required for certiorari relief.
Key facts
- Rachael Lane, then thirty-nine years old, filed a petition seeking adult support from Ronald Cannon; Cannon's paternity had never been established.
- As part of the support proceeding, Lane asked the circuit court to order Cannon to submit to DNA testing to determine paternity.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Holdings
- An order erroneously compelling a person to submit to genetic testing causes irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on plenary appeal, satisfying the two jurisdictional prongs of…
- +2 more holdings with a free trial
Why it matters
The holding on 'clearly established law' has value well beyond family law. Respondents routinely defeat certiorari petitions by arguing that no case law addresses the precise question, and this opinion squarely… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.